JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.4481/2001 dated 21.07.2010 on the file of the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (SCCH.10) (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the liability. 2. The parties are referred to as per their before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Ashok R. Kyalkond was travelling in a Car bearing registration No.MH-12-W-3542 and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle, met with an accident on 18.06.2001 at about 6.00 p.m. on Jayapal Godown, Lonikond Village on Pune-Nagar Road (Maharashtra State) within the limits of Loni Kalabhor Police Station, Maharashtra State. Hence, the claim petition was filed by the wife of the deceased, minor son and parents of the deceased. The Insurance Company in the written statement took defence that the deceased was proceeding in the offending Car during the course of his employment under the owner and the risk of the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle. The liability is subject to the validity of the vehicle documents, driving licence at the time of the accident etc., 4. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim, examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, respondent examined a witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1-the copy of the policy/receipt, Ex.P2-policy, Ex.P3-settlement intimation voucher, Ex.P4-receipt of amount, Ex.P5-motor claim form and Ex.P6-registeration extract. The Tribunal, considering the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part by granting compensation of Rs.14,90,295/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum directing respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount by deducting any compensation, if already paid and exonerated the liability on the Insurance Company coming to the conclusion that the deceased being the employee of the owner is not covered under the policy. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Company i.e., respondent No.1. 5. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Company i.e., respondent No.1. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Insurance Company in its amended written statement at para No.9 contended that insurer was not required to cover the deceased; the liability under the policy is fixed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-which has been satisfied directly and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the remaining amount. The Insurance Company relied upon the document Ex.R1-copy of the policy/receipt and also the document at Ex.R2-the private car policy of the vehicle involved in the accident. The payment made under Ex.R1 is in respect of the different policy. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the same to hold that the liability under the instant policy towards the third party liability is that of the Insurance Company alone. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the Tribunal failed to note that Ex.R3 is another receipt issued by respondent No.1, which is in respect of the own damages, the compensation for the car in question. It is not towards any payment made in terms of the policy Ex.R2 on account of the deceased as alleged. R.W.1 admitted in his evidence that additional premium of Rs.200/-was collected under Ex.R2 towards personal accident to cover the unnamed passengers other than the insured and his paid driver or cleaner. He has further admitted that the settlement intimation voucher at Ex.R3 does not cover the settlement for the death of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that, under Ex.R3, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-is paid in respect of the vehicle belong to this respondent and not towards compensation or settlement of the deceased. The deceased was not a workman as defined under Clause IMT-5 of Ex.R2 as admitted by R.W.1. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also wound contend that as per the evidence of R.W.1, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-which is stated to have been paid by respondent No.1 under IMT-5 is not towards third party liability. It is an additional benefit for additional cover. The Insurance Company cannot absolve its liability covered under the policy towards third party liability. The contention of respondent No.2 is that the deceased was traveling in the course of employment and as such, the risk was not covered under the insurance policy is untenable. It is an additional benefit for additional cover. The Insurance Company cannot absolve its liability covered under the policy towards third party liability. The contention of respondent No.2 is that the deceased was traveling in the course of employment and as such, the risk was not covered under the insurance policy is untenable. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly stipulates that a policy of insurance must be a policy which is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer and insures against any liability which may be incurred in respect of death of bodily injury to person or damage to any third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. In the instant case, the deceased was a passenger in the Car owned by the appellant and therefore, the liability of the insurer under the terms and conditions of Ex.R2 is unlimited. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 8. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and Another, reported in (2013)1 SCC 731 , and would contend that the Apex Court in the said judgment discussed with regard to Sections 146, 147(1) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and held that owner or gratuitous passenger travelling in motor vehicle meeting with accident -liability of insurer-Managing Director travelling in Company-owned vehicle -vehicle insured by Company -insurer is liable to pay compensation in case of “comprehensive/package policy” but not in case of “Act Policy” -circulars of statutory regulatory authority (presently IRDA) dated 16-11-2009 and 3-12-2009 taken into consideration -However, whether policy in question in instant case describing itself to be “comprehensive policy” was really a “package policy” was to be determined by interpretation of entire policy – Matter remitted to Tribunal to determine the said issue and grant relief based on said determination. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.B.R.Suma @ Radha and Others v. Sri. Yamanoor Sab Katarki and Others reported in ILR 2014 KAR. 1465. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.B.R.Suma @ Radha and Others v. Sri. Yamanoor Sab Katarki and Others reported in ILR 2014 KAR. 1465. In the said judgment, this Court set aside the award of the Tribunal in directing the insurer to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 7% per annum taking note of the document at Ex.R1 and held that it is not in dispute that, Ex.R1 insurance policy, is a package policy(comprehensive policy), which covers the risk of the third party and the inmates of the private car. In the present case, the deceased persons were the inmates of the private car and they succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Therefore, in the light of the terms and conditions of the said package policy, it is crystal clear that, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the award amount if it is a package policy by the owner of a private Car and the insurer is not supposed to take a different stand than the one in the terms and conditions of the said package policy. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant, in his arguments, would vehemently contend that it is not in dispute that the policy issued by the Insurance Company is a package policy. When the policy is a package policy, it covers the risk of a person who travelled in the Car. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Amrit Lal Sood and Another v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others reported in 1998 ACJ 531 , wherein it is held that the Insurance Company is not exempted from indemnifying the owner towards the liability in a motor insurance of comprehensive policy and a gratuitous passenger travelled in a car sustained injuries when the car collided with a goods carrier due to negligence of the driver of the Car and the Insurance Company agreed to indemnify the insured against the death of or bodily injury to ‘any person’ under Section II (1)(a) of the policy. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable but the Single Judge in appeal exonerated the Insurance Company. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable but the Single Judge in appeal exonerated the Insurance Company. In L.P.A., the findings of the Single Judge were confirmed observing that the passenger was not carried for hire or reward. The expression ‘any person’ would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in the car. Learned counsel would submit that in the present case on hand, the deceased was travelling in the car as a gratuitous passenger and hence, the policy would include an occupant of the car, who is gratuitously travelling in the car. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would vehemently contend that it is not in dispute that the deceased travelled in the car as an employee of the insured. Hence, the Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The terms and conditions of the policy are very clear that the policy does not cover the employee of the insured, who travelled in the car. 12. Learned counsel, in his arguments, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 2877 , wherein it is held with regard to the limits of the liability of Insurance Company towards ‘any person’ or ‘passenger’ occurring in Section 147. Though are of wide amplitude, do not cover employees other than those mentioned in proviso to sub-section (b). Mere mention of word ‘cleaner’ in insurance certificate describing seating capacity of vehicle does not mean that seat cleaner/khalasi was, therefore, a passenger. Plea that policy being comprehensive one covers all risks is negated. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court para Nos.8 and 10 of the said judgment. 13. Mere mention of word ‘cleaner’ in insurance certificate describing seating capacity of vehicle does not mean that seat cleaner/khalasi was, therefore, a passenger. Plea that policy being comprehensive one covers all risks is negated. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court para Nos.8 and 10 of the said judgment. 13. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and others, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 , wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to the provisions under Sections 147, 149 of the MV Act and third party insurance -persons covered under -employee of insured person -when covered -scope of words, “any person” in Section 147(1)(b) -Insurance Company’s duty under Section 149 to satisfy award against insured -when arises -held that insurance policy in terms of Section 147 is not intended to cover the persons other than third parties – “Any person” in Section 147(1)(b) is to be understood as a third party. Employees of the insured are not normally covered under the statutory insurance except in case of a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of death or bodily injury to an employee engaged in driving the vehicle, or who serves as a conductor or an employee who travels in vehicle of employer carrying goods, in case of goods carriage -nor can Section 149(1) be used to enlarge the liability if it does not exist in terms of Section 147 -In a case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of 1988 Act, Insurance Company cannot be made automatically liable merely by purportedly resorting to ratio of Swaran Singh’s Case. In the present case, V, a Regional Manager of the Company that owned the car met his death in an accident while he was using the car given to him by the Company for use -Tribunal proceeding on basis that V had been driving the Car when it met with the accident (though V’s dependents claiming that another person, M had been driving the car and not V)– V, if covered by the statutory insurance – Held, whether V is treated as owner of the vehicle or an employee, he is not covered by the statutory insurance since V was not the driver, nor could V be understood as a workman coming within the 1923 Act otherwise -Only by entering into a special contract by the insured could such a person as V be brought under coverage -There being no such special contract, and V not being a “third party”, appellant Insurance Company was not obliged under Section 149 to satisfy the award and then have recourse to the insured owner -High Court erred in directing Insurance Company to satisfy the award purportedly on the basis of Swaran Singh case without examining whether on facts, V was a “third party”. Learned counsel referring to this judgment brought to the notice of this Court para Nos.21, 28 and 29. 14. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:- 1. Whether the death of the employee who was travelling in the car which belongs to the appellant/insured covers the risk of the policy under Ex.R1? 2. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured instead of Insurance Company and whether it requires interference of this Court ? 3. What order? Point Nos.1 and 2:- 15. Having perused the pleadings, it is not in dispute that the deceased was employed in the Company, which belongs to the appellant herein. On perusal of the claim petition, it discloses that the deceased was working as a Manager in the appellant Company. Having considered the materials on record, it is also not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in the car bearing registration No.MH-12-W-3542 and the said car met with an accident and he passed away. On perusal of the claim petition, it discloses that the deceased was working as a Manager in the appellant Company. Having considered the materials on record, it is also not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in the car bearing registration No.MH-12-W-3542 and the said car met with an accident and he passed away. The specific contention of the Insurance Company is that the deceased being the employee of the insured, is not covered under the policy. The claimants, in order to substantiate their case, examined P.W.1 and P.W.1 speaks with regard to the employment and earnings and the same is not in dispute. 16. On the other hand, Insurance Company examined the Senior Divisional Manager as R.W.1. R.W.1, in his affidavit, reiterated that the deceased was working under the appellant herein and was travelling in the said car on the date of the accident during the course of and arising out of his employment under the appellant, who is the insured of the car and the risk of such an employee is not required to be covered under the Insurance Policy issued in respect of the car in question. The fixed liability of Rs.1,00,000/-under the IMT-5 of the insurance policy in question has already been satisfied by the Pune Branch of Insurance Company. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. In the cross-examination, R.W.1 admits that Ex.R2-policy is a comprehensive policy and that the deceased was working as an Executive in the appellant Company. The word ‘workman’ is not been defined in Ex.R2. However, he claims that the deceased was not a workman as defined under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and he was an employee of the appellant Company. It is suggested that the deceased is not coming under the category of IMT No.5 and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that the liability of respondent No.2 Insurance Company under this policy is unlimited and the same is denied. 18. Before appreciating the oral evidence, this Court would like to rely upon the document-Ex.R1, which is the receipt. Ex.R2 is the policy in respect of the vehicle met with an accident. It is suggested that the liability of respondent No.2 Insurance Company under this policy is unlimited and the same is denied. 18. Before appreciating the oral evidence, this Court would like to rely upon the document-Ex.R1, which is the receipt. Ex.R2 is the policy in respect of the vehicle met with an accident. Having perused the schedule premium, an amount of Rs.340/-is collected in respect of third parties and also an amount of Rs.200/-is collected towards personal accident benefits as IMT-5 for 4 passengers, which covers the capital benefit of Rs.1,00,000/-each. An amount of Rs.15/-is collected towards legal liability to paid driver and also an amount of Rs.50/-towards the increase, if any in property damager Section II-I(ii)I (IMT 70) and thus, in all collected an amount of Rs.3,524/-after adding service tax and deducting special discount of 5%. 19. Having perused Ex.R2, the document is very clear that it is a private car policy and ‘B’ package policy i.e., comprehensive policy. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company brought to the notice of this Court Section II of the policy which deals with the liability to third parties, wherein sub clause (a) of clause 1 says that the death of or bodily injury to any person including the occupants carried in the motor car (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but expect so far it is necessary to meet requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises, out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured. The Insurance Company mainly relied upon this clause and contend that the Company is not liable to pay any compensation where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured. 20. Having perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is clear that the employee of the appellant Company died while travelling in the car, which belongs to the Company. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was an employee of the appellant Company. On perusal of the schedule premium and also the document at Ex.R2, it is clear that the vehicle insured is a private car, which belongs to the Company and also it is not in dispute that the policy is a package policy/comprehensive policy. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was an employee of the appellant Company. On perusal of the schedule premium and also the document at Ex.R2, it is clear that the vehicle insured is a private car, which belongs to the Company and also it is not in dispute that the policy is a package policy/comprehensive policy. The said fact is also admitted by R.W.1 in the cross-examination. The only contention of the Insurance Company before the Court is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the deceased travelled as an employee of the Company and hence, the risk of the deceased is not covered under the policy. 21. Taking note of the factual aspects of the matter and question of law raised in the appeal, this Court has to take note of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ramashray Singh’s case would submits that the Apex Court discussed with regard to Section 147(1)(b) of the MV Act, the risk of the third party and the limits of the liability of the Insurance Company and so also considering the words ‘any person’ or ‘passenger’ occurring in Section 147. No doubt, the Apex Court says that the risk of the passenger in the car cannot be covered even though the policy is the comprehensive policy. 22. This Court would like to extract para Nos.8 and 10 of the said judgment as hereunder:- “8. Over and above the risks which are covered by this statutory provision, parties may of course enter into a contract by which the insurer agrees to cover additional risks. It is not the appellant's case that apart from the policy of insurance there was any contract between the appellant and the Insurance Company. The policy has a clause which defines the limits of liability in respect of death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle under Section II(1) of the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy has a clause which defines the limits of liability in respect of death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle under Section II(1) of the terms and conditions of the policy. In proviso (b) to Section II(1), it has been expressly stated that “Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment.” 10. The appellant's first submission was that Shashi Bhushan Singh was a passenger. The appellant's submission that the phrases “any person” and “any passenger” in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) to Section 147(1) are of wide amplitude, is correct. (See: New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [ (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] .) However, the proviso to the sub-section carves out an exception in respect of one class of persons and passengers, namely, employees of the insured. In other words, if the “person” or “passenger” is an employee, then the insurer is required under the statute to cover only certain employees. As stated earlier, this would still allow the insured to enter into an agreement to cover other employees, but under the proviso to Section 147(1)(b), it is clear that for the purposes of Section 146(1), a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death arising out of and in the course of any employment of the person insured unless: first, the liability of the insured arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and second, if the employee is engaged in driving the vehicle and if it is a public service vehicle, is engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle. If the employee concerned is neither a driver nor conductor nor examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim that the employee would come under the description of “any person” or “passenger”. If this were permissible, then there would be no need to make special provisions for employees of the insured. The mere mention of the word “cleaner” while describing the seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean that the cleaner was therefore a passenger. If this were permissible, then there would be no need to make special provisions for employees of the insured. The mere mention of the word “cleaner” while describing the seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean that the cleaner was therefore a passenger. Besides, the claim of the deceased employee was adjudicated upon by the Workmen's Compensation Court which could have assumed jurisdiction and passed an order directing compensation only on the basis that the deceased was an employee. This order cannot now be enforced on the basis that the deceased was a passenger. 23. It is also important to note that in Meena Variyal’s case (supra), no doubt, the Apex Court held that insurance policy in terms of Section 147 is not intended to cover the persons other than the third parties. It is further observed that “Any person” in Section 147(1)(b) is to be understood as a third party. However, held that employees of the insured are not normally covered under the statutory insurance except in cases of a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of death or bodily injury to an employee engaged in driving the vehicle, or in other capacity. 24. This Court would like to extract para Nos.21, 28 and 29 of the said judgment as hereunder:- “21. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., in para 761, the position as regards “employees” is stated as follows: “A policy is not required to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury sustained by a person in the employment of a person insured by the policy where the death or injury arises out of and in the course of that employment. This exclusion is framed in the language of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and is presumably intended to reflect the well-established distinction in the insurance world between public liability risks and employers' liability risks. The distinctions which are involved are very finely drawn.” 28. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. This exclusion is framed in the language of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and is presumably intended to reflect the well-established distinction in the insurance world between public liability risks and employers' liability risks. The distinctions which are involved are very finely drawn.” 28. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. [ (1977) 2 SCC 745 : (1977) 3 SCR 372 ] , two of the learned Judges who constituted the Bench in Minu B. Mehta [ (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (1977) 2 SCR 886 ] held that when a car is driven by the owner's employee on owner's business, the normal rule was that it was for the claimant for compensation to prove negligence. When the Manager of the owner while driving the car on the business of the owner took in a passenger, it would be taken that he had the authority to do so, considering his position unless otherwise shown. If due to his negligent driving an accident occurred and the passenger died, the owner would be liable for compensation. The Court noticed that the modern trend was to make the master liable for acts of his servant which may not fall within the expression “in the course of his employment” as formerly understood. With respect, we think that the extensions to the principle of liability have been rightly indicated in this decision. 29. On the facts of this case, there is no finding that Mahmood Hasan, another employee of the owner was driving the vehicle. Even if he was, there is no finding of his negligence. The victim was the Regional Manager of the Company that owned the car. He was using the car given to him by the Company for use. Whether he is treated as the owner of the vehicle or as an employee, he is not covered by the insurance policy taken in terms of the Act—without any special contract—since there is no award under the Workmen's Compensation Act that is required to be satisfied by the insurer. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and is also not obliged to satisfy the award of the Tribunal/Court and then have recourse to the insured, the owner of the vehicle. The High Court was in error in modifying the award of the Tribunal in that regard.” 25. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and is also not obliged to satisfy the award of the Tribunal/Court and then have recourse to the insured, the owner of the vehicle. The High Court was in error in modifying the award of the Tribunal in that regard.” 25. It is to be noted that these two decisions are rendered in the year 2003 and 2007. The Apex Court in the recent decision of Balakrishnan’s case, discussed with regard to Sections 146, 147(1) and 166 of the MV Act, regarding the liability of the Insurance Company when the owner or gratuitous passenger travelling in motor vehicle meeting with an accident. In the said case, the Managing Director travelled in the Company owned vehicle, and the Apex Court held that when the vehicle is insured by the Company, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation in case of “comprehensive/package policy” but not in case of “Act policy”. It is to be noted that in this decision, the Apex Court also referred to the circulars of statutory regulatory authority (presently IRDA) dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009. Taking into consideration of the said circulars, the Apex Court in categorically held that as the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has commanded the Insurance Companies that a “comprehensive/package policy” covers the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation to the occupant in a motor vehicle and there cannot be any dispute in that regard. It is further observed that earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of an “Act policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third-party risk of an occupant in the car. But, if the policy is a “comprehensive/package policy”, the liability would be covered. IRDA has clarified the position by issuing Circulars dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009. Therefore, a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. The Apex Court has discussed elaborately with regard to the said aspect at para Nos.24 to 27 of the said judgment. Hence, this Court would like to extract the said para Nos.24 to 27 as hereunder:- “24. Therefore, a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. The Apex Court has discussed elaborately with regard to the said aspect at para Nos.24 to 27 of the said judgment. Hence, this Court would like to extract the said para Nos.24 to 27 as hereunder:- “24. It is extremely important to note here that till 31-12-2006 the Tariff Advisory Committee and, thereafter, from 1-1-2007 IRDA functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities and they are entitled to fix the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the policies issued by all insurance companies. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the “comprehensive/package policy”. Before the High Court, the competent authority of IRDA had stated that on 2-6-1986, the Tariff Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a scooter/motorcycle under the “comprehensive policy” and the said position continues to be in vogue till date. It had also admitted that the “comprehensive policy” is presently called a “package policy”. It is the admitted position, as the decision would show, the earlier Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 continue to be valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in a car under the “comprehensive/package policy” irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The competent authority of IRDA was also examined before the High Court who stated that the Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 of the Tariff Advisory Committee were incorporated in the Indian Motor Tariff effective from 1-7-2002 and they continue to be operative and binding on the insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid factual position, the Circulars dated 16-11-2009 and 3-12-2009, that have been reproduced hereinabove, were issued. 25. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually stated [ 2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] thus: (Yashpal Luthra case [ 2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] , ACJ p. 1424, para 27) “27. 25. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually stated [ 2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] thus: (Yashpal Luthra case [ 2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] , ACJ p. 1424, para 27) “27. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two-wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC's directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.” 26. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act policy” stands on a different footing from a “comprehensive/package policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “comprehensive/package policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third-party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “comprehensive/package policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in Bhagyalakshmi [ (2009) 7 SCC 148 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 87 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 321] and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same. 27. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same. 27. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the question that emerges for consideration is: whether in the case at hand, the policy is an “Act policy” or “comprehensive/package policy”? There has been no discussion either by the Tribunal or the High Court in this regard. True it is, before us, Annexure P-1 has been filed which is a policy issued by the insurer. It only mentions the policy to be a “comprehensive policy” but we are inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of the terms of the entire policy to arrive at the conclusion whether it is really a “package policy” to cover the liability of an occupant in a car. 26. Having considered the principles laid down in the decision in Balakrishnan’s case (supra), and keeping in view of the discussion made at para Nos.24 to 27 and so also considering the factual aspects of the case, in the similar set of circumstances, the Managing Director travelled in the Company owned vehicle and in the case on hand also, the deceased, who was working as a Manager travelled in the Company owned vehicle. Taking into consideration of the subsequent circulars issued by IRDA dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009, which has been discussed by the Apex Court in the said judgment, the very contention of the Insurance Company that it is not liable to pay compensation, cannot be accepted and those two decisions referred by the Insurance Company are rendered prior to issuing of the circulars dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009. Hence, I am of the opinion that in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Balakrishnan’s case, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In the present case on hand also, the policy is comprehensive policy and the discussion made in para Nos.24 to 27 of the judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand and the subsequent circulars are clear that the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability contending that the policy not covers the risk of the employee and the insured. In the present case on hand also, the policy is comprehensive policy and the discussion made in para Nos.24 to 27 of the judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand and the subsequent circulars are clear that the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability contending that the policy not covers the risk of the employee and the insured. The policy – Ex.R1 covers the risk of the employee who travelled in the car which belongs to the Company as gratuitous passenger as held in Balakrishnan’s case in comprehensive policy. 27. In the decision of the Apex Court in Ramashray Singh’s case, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, it is categorically held with regard to the risk of the third party and the limits of the liability of the Insurance Company taking note of the words ‘any person’ or ‘passenger’ occurring in Section 147 and further observed that the risk of the passenger in the car cannot be covered even though the policy is a comprehensive policy. 28. In Meena Variyal’s case, the Apex Court has held that the insurance policy in terms of Section 147 is not intended to cover the persons other than the third parties. In the said judgment, considering Section 147(1)(b) of the Act, it is held that ‘any person’ is to be understood as third party. But in Balakrishnan’s case, the circulars of Statutory Regulatory Authority dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009 are considered and these two circulars are issued in the year 2009 in order to clarify the conflicting views of the Apex Court considering the comprehensive policy. No doubt, in Balakrishnan’s case, the Apex Court remanded the matter as there was no material before the Apex Court as to whether it is a comprehensive policy or package policy. But in the case on hand, this Court already considered the document Ex.R1 as a comprehensive policy and the discussions made in para Nos.24 to 27 of the judgment in Balakrishnan’s case covers the issue involved in the matter and wherein it is categorically held that the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability contending that the policy does not cover the risk of the employee and the insured. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative by coming to the conclusion that the death of the employee of the insured covers the risk in terms of the policy under Ex.R1. The very contention that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured instead of Insurance Company is accepted. 29. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:-ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The Insurance Company/respondent No.5 is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within six weeks’ from today. (iii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be paid to the appellant on proper identification. (iv) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.